update_agent_instructions_from_tools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal process: 'Fetches tools, builds helpful instructions, and patches the agent.' This is useful, but it does not explain side effects on existing instructions, permissions required, or error behavior. The disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes value, and the example use case adds context without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, prerequisites, or what the patch entails. The process description is high-level but does not equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain 'agent_id' or 'agent_name' at all. It does not clarify which parameter is required, whether both are needed, or how they relate. The description provides no compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Update an agent's instructions based on its assigned tools.' It specifies the verb ('update'), the resource ('agent's instructions'), and the method ('based on its assigned tools'). The example use case ('update TimeWeatherAgent instructions based on its tools') further distinguishes it from generic 'update_agent' and other sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear context with the example use case, indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. It gives a concrete scenario but lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.